Nice piece, Joe, but you need to go further. Longer-term, the necessity is to root out “critical theory” and its hierarchy of oppressions and return to American values -- equality of opportunity, not “equity”; shared culture, not multiculturalism; color-blindness, not “antiracist” racism.
That can start by eliminating DEI offices, but it’s going to require changing the academic environment as well. Fortunately, there ARE a lot of academics who can do it -- if they can escape the heavy hand of the DEI censors.
Mike, I much appreciate your thoughtful comment. And, as always, I am glad to hear from you and hope all is well. If you are retired, as I am, I hope that is to your liking.
I will respectfully disagree with you, nonetheless. I got quite familiar with critical race theory in Nebraska, when a regent (who is now Nebraska's governor) unsuccessfully tried to ban it. When properly applied, it is a useful lens through which to see race relations in the U.S., an area we still haven't properly dealt with. For a good explanation of CRT, see https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05.
Color-blindness in some respects is good and necessary. In others, however, it's a shortcoming. For instance, it's useful for faculties to have a diverse group and for students to be taught by people of different backgrounds. That's the opposite of color-blindness; instead, it's recognizing the value people who hail from different worlds bring.
As for DEI, my experiences with it were positive -- as I laid out in prior pieces in this Substack. It's possible it doesn't work well everywhere, but I can speak only to my encounters. It meant a very helpful book club among our faculty and an effort to diversify that faculty in hires. It also meant I co-led a course in which students and I explored the troubled racial and ethnic history of Nebraska -- something of value to all of us.
Even if we disagree, please do continue to weigh in in this space as needed. I value the discussion.
While I appreciate that your experiences with DEI have been positive and, indeed if CRT were to be judged only on the character of its political opponents, it would be much easier to accept and support. But if you're looking at DEI and/or CRT--or "intersectionality"--as solutions to antisemitism on campus, I believe you'll be disappointed. I encourage you to read and explore experiences on other campuses and institutions. Much of current college antisemitism is based on a historically inaccurate view of Jews as white colonizers and oppressors--used to justify the attack on merit which naturally targets identifiable groups that over-perform their proportions of the population. All antisemitism is based in conspiracy theory; left isn't all that different from right in this respect.
Dan, thanks for your comment. If DEI programs in other schools are as troubled as you suggest, that is, indeed, cause for a lot of worry. But what I've read of such programs suggests that attacks on them are more a partisan ideological matter and that the antisemitism charge is mostly unsupported. See https://www.vox.com/24010858/republicans-antisemitism-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-jewish-students. That piece points out that antisemitism is not addressed in these programs, but suggests it is also not bred by them (except implicitly because Jews are seen as white). To wit: “I’ve appeared on many DEI panels where DEI officers have admitted that antisemitism hasn’t been part of the DEI context,” said Adam Neufeld, the senior vice president and chief impact officer at the ADL. “I think there’s a number of reasons for this, ranging from Jews being represented in certain sectors in a proportionate or even more than proportionate way. I also think that it is a blind spot more broadly. Many Jews are white or white-identifying, at least in America, and so as a result it doesn’t fit into some of the DEI frameworks.” But because there is so much pressure now on DEI programs (they're being banned in Florida, for instance, and targeted by state legislatures nationwide), and because campus antisemitism is a growing problem, it would surprise me if the programs don't address it going forward.
Nice piece, Joe, but you need to go further. Longer-term, the necessity is to root out “critical theory” and its hierarchy of oppressions and return to American values -- equality of opportunity, not “equity”; shared culture, not multiculturalism; color-blindness, not “antiracist” racism.
That can start by eliminating DEI offices, but it’s going to require changing the academic environment as well. Fortunately, there ARE a lot of academics who can do it -- if they can escape the heavy hand of the DEI censors.
Mike, I much appreciate your thoughtful comment. And, as always, I am glad to hear from you and hope all is well. If you are retired, as I am, I hope that is to your liking.
I will respectfully disagree with you, nonetheless. I got quite familiar with critical race theory in Nebraska, when a regent (who is now Nebraska's governor) unsuccessfully tried to ban it. When properly applied, it is a useful lens through which to see race relations in the U.S., an area we still haven't properly dealt with. For a good explanation of CRT, see https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05.
Color-blindness in some respects is good and necessary. In others, however, it's a shortcoming. For instance, it's useful for faculties to have a diverse group and for students to be taught by people of different backgrounds. That's the opposite of color-blindness; instead, it's recognizing the value people who hail from different worlds bring.
As for DEI, my experiences with it were positive -- as I laid out in prior pieces in this Substack. It's possible it doesn't work well everywhere, but I can speak only to my encounters. It meant a very helpful book club among our faculty and an effort to diversify that faculty in hires. It also meant I co-led a course in which students and I explored the troubled racial and ethnic history of Nebraska -- something of value to all of us.
Even if we disagree, please do continue to weigh in in this space as needed. I value the discussion.
JW
While I appreciate that your experiences with DEI have been positive and, indeed if CRT were to be judged only on the character of its political opponents, it would be much easier to accept and support. But if you're looking at DEI and/or CRT--or "intersectionality"--as solutions to antisemitism on campus, I believe you'll be disappointed. I encourage you to read and explore experiences on other campuses and institutions. Much of current college antisemitism is based on a historically inaccurate view of Jews as white colonizers and oppressors--used to justify the attack on merit which naturally targets identifiable groups that over-perform their proportions of the population. All antisemitism is based in conspiracy theory; left isn't all that different from right in this respect.
Dan, thanks for your comment. If DEI programs in other schools are as troubled as you suggest, that is, indeed, cause for a lot of worry. But what I've read of such programs suggests that attacks on them are more a partisan ideological matter and that the antisemitism charge is mostly unsupported. See https://www.vox.com/24010858/republicans-antisemitism-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-jewish-students. That piece points out that antisemitism is not addressed in these programs, but suggests it is also not bred by them (except implicitly because Jews are seen as white). To wit: “I’ve appeared on many DEI panels where DEI officers have admitted that antisemitism hasn’t been part of the DEI context,” said Adam Neufeld, the senior vice president and chief impact officer at the ADL. “I think there’s a number of reasons for this, ranging from Jews being represented in certain sectors in a proportionate or even more than proportionate way. I also think that it is a blind spot more broadly. Many Jews are white or white-identifying, at least in America, and so as a result it doesn’t fit into some of the DEI frameworks.” But because there is so much pressure now on DEI programs (they're being banned in Florida, for instance, and targeted by state legislatures nationwide), and because campus antisemitism is a growing problem, it would surprise me if the programs don't address it going forward.